Blogs and Stories
Polanski's Lost Alibi
Nick Ut / AP Photo
A retired L.A. prosecutor—the man at the center of the Polanski judicial misconduct allegations—now tells Marcia Clark that he lied to documentarians, undercutting the director’s defense. Among the developments Clark finds:
• Polanski’s grounds for dismissal center around the former prosecutor inappropriately advising the judge about how to send Polanski back to prison. But the former prosecutor, David Wells, now tells Clark that “I lied” in the movie about advising the judge, and that “it never happened,” which could undermine the director’s case for dismissal.
• Wells’ excuse for lying in the movie? “The director of the documentary told me it would never air in the States. I thought it made a better story if I said I’d told the judge what to do.”
• Wells confirms to Clark that he did supply the judge pictures of Polanski reveling at Oktoberfest, and says that it’s these photos that prompted the judge in 1977 to reconsider the plea bargain.
• Law-enforcement sources confirm that the strident actions of Polanski’s own lawyers—prompted by Wells’ now-recanted statements in the movie—led to his arrest this weekend.
David Wells is the former prosecutor at the center of the Roman Polanski case—I knew him well back in the day. What he told the director of the 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired—that he advised the judge in the case how to elegantly send Polanski to prison—gave Polanski’s lawyers an opening to try to dismiss the case last year, setting off a collision with the district attorney’s office. The result? Polanski now sits in a Swiss jail.
“I lied. I know I shouldn’t have done it, but I did. The director of the documentary told me it would never air in the States. I thought it made a better story if I said I’d told the judge what to do.”
I just spoke to Wells—and what he told me is going to make things worse for Polanski.
“I lied,” Wells told me yesterday, referring to his comments in the movie that he told the judge how he could renege on a plea-bargain agreement and send Polanski back to jail after he had been released from a 42-day psychiatric evalation—the heart of Polanski’s claims of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. “I know I shouldn’t have done it, but I did. The director of the documentary told me it would never air in the States. I thought it made a better story if I said I’d told the judge what to do.”
• Thaddeus Russell: How Young Is Too Young?
• Robert Goolrick: Polanski’s Victim and Me
• Read full coverage of the Polanski scandalRecanting these statements is a bombshell. Especially because it was Wells’ comments in the movie that directly led to the international legal showdown we’re now facing. After Polanski’s lawyers filed their motion last winter, the DA’s office had to do something. Granted, at first the “something” was a confusing, muddled mess. The office initially denied that there’d been misconduct when the case was originally prosecuted; then, faced with Wells’ statements in the documentary, it withdrew that statement. But privately, after many aborted efforts over the years, it dusted off the arrest warrant and nabbed the guy. Law-enforcement sources have acknowledged that Polanski has his own lawyers and their strident motions to thank for finally landing him behind bars.
So what really went down in the chambers of publicity-hungry Judge Laurence Rittenband back in 1977? “All that happened was I brought the newspaper with the picture of Polanski at Oktoberfest [before his 42-day evaluation] into court and handed it to the bailiff,” Wells told me. “I told the bailiff, ‘Here, give this to the judge.’ Did I know it would tick him off? Yeah. It ticked me off. Polanski was thumbing his nose at everyone.”
“When [Judge] Rittenband saw the photograph of Polanski out on the town…he blew up. Said, ‘Screw the deal, he’s going to state prison.’ And he said it straight to a reporter from The Outlook. Polanski’s lawyer found out about it, of course. And that was that. He never showed up for sentencing.”
So he didn’t advise him on a strategy for how to send Polanski back for more prison—a clear ethical violation—after all parties, including Judge Rittenband himself, had ostensibly agreed to let the 42 days suffice? “No. It never happened,” he said flatly.
I believe him. It’s absolutely forbidden to have one-sided communications with a judge about a pending case. I once knew Wells—rather well, actually. He was a brilliant lawyer, a great raconteur, and he had a wicked sense of humor—but unethical? Hardly.
In the documentary, Wells said he’d never thought Polanski got enough of a sentence for raping a 13-year-old girl. And if anyone knew what Polanski had done, it was Wells. He’d been the one who first caught the case, and he’d interviewed the victim, her mother, her brother, and Polanski himself. Because that kind of involvement would have made him a witness if the case went to trial (which lawyers, and especially prosecutors must avoid), Wells was taken off the case and Roger Gunson was assigned. According to Wells, the switch rankled, “but I got it—they did the right thing, I just think they should’ve left me on as co-counsel. Hell, no one knew the case better than I did.”
A plea bargain was worked out, allowing Polanski to go into state prison for “90-day diagnostic testing.” Back in those days, it was fairly common to let a defendant plead guilty to a lesser charge and have him go in for that diagnostic—a series of psychological tests, and a thorough background check—and if the prison didn’t recommend any further time, the judge would abide by that recommendation. “It’s likely Judge Rittenband agreed to abide by the recommendation and give Polanski no additional time after he finished his diagnostic,” Wells said. “What he probably didn’t count on was that Polanski would promise to put everyone in the prison in his next movie and basically charm his way out of there in just 42 days.”
Although there’d been grumblings about the wrist slap of a sentence, Wells said, “You have to remember, this was the ’70s. People had a different state of mind about sex crimes back then. They were asking what the girl was doing at his house to begin with, talking about how she wasn’t a virgin anyway. I said, ‘What difference did it make? She was a child, just 13 years old. Who cares what she’d done before?’”
• Mark Geragos & Pat Harris: The Polanski Endgame
• Gerald Posner: Polanski's Next EscapeThose were the days when folks still believed rape was “easy to charge and hard to disprove.” And that old adage couldn’t have been further from the truth. Prosecutors well knew that unless the victim was Snow White, the case was toast. All too often, the victim got put through the shredder at trial, framed up as the “slut” who “deserved” it, only to wind up hearing the jury say “not guilty.” And the victims felt they’d gone through all that misery for nothing.
“Even so, knowing what he’d done, I thought that letting him plead to statutory rape was nothing. I wouldn’t have given him that deal,” Wells said.
Polanski’s lawyers will surely ask him that, and more, when and if the director returns. Wells is bound to have to come into court, raise his right hand, and admit he lied. “I’m going to have to eat crow,” he told me. “I know that. And I will. I know how it sounds, that I’m willing to lie about talking to Judge Rittenband, but I didn’t do anything unethical. But it’s the truth.”
“Look, after 30 years, I never thought they’d get the guy back here,” Wells continued. “I figured no one cared anymore, and no one here would ever see the film anyway. What can I say? I don’t have a better reason than that. It seemed like a good idea at the time.” Knowing Wells, I wouldn’t have put it past him to have lied in the movie just to stir the pot, and get the case moving in some direction again, which was certainly accomplished.
Now the magic act begins for Polanski’s lawyers. Because unless they can bend bars the way Uri Geller bends spoons, the director will soon end his 30-year exile and appear once again in a U.S. courtroom. His lawyers will then have to show why a rape case should disappear.
Wells’ repudiation hurts them big-time. It’s the equivalent of “I’m a liar and everything I say is a lie.” By discrediting himself, he largely negates his value to Polanski. For the record, if he really did make those suggestions to the judge, I wouldn’t put it past him to fall on his sword, say he lied, and save the case. But if that’s true, and I don’t think it is, it was also unnecessary. A judge would be highly unlikely to throw out the rape case even if David Wells had spoken privately to Rittenband. An ex parte communication generally wouldn’t justify dismissal of a violent felony anyway. And for this kind of communication? Forget about it.
But if there was a plea bargain in place stating that the judge would abide by the prison recommendation, and we know that the prison recommended no more time, what could the judge do? “Legally? That never mattered a whole heck of a lot to Judge Rittenband. If he wanted out of the deal and wanted Polanski to get state prison time, he’d just do it,” Wells replied.
There’s no question that Judge Rittenband couldn’t legally have imposed more time after agreeing to abide by the state prison recommendation. And don’t forget, Polanski wasn’t alone in that courtroom, he had a lawyer—a damn good one. “[Douglas] Dalton was a great lawyer. He wouldn’t have just stood there and let his client get hauled off to prison,” Wells said.
But Polanski wasn’t willing to risk any time waiting in prison while his lawyer figured it out. No doubt, any improper sentence would’ve been set aside, but that doesn’t mean Polanski would get the benefit of his bargain, either. Generally speaking, a judge is never bound to accept a plea bargain he doesn’t approve of. Judge Rittenband could legally have let Polanski withdraw his plea and either set the case for trial or set new terms for the plea bargain and see if Polanski would accept them. If the director had agreed to do more time, it certainly wouldn’t have been because he thought he deserved it. His statements both then and now show he doesn’t think what he did was any big deal. According to him, “no one got hurt.”
I beg to differ. But don’t take my word for it. If you want to know what it’s all about, read Samantha Geimer’s testimony before the grand jury. See what you think.
So what happens next?
Assuming Polanski loses his fight to resist extradition, he’ll be back in court—and not “just” for the rape. He now could be charged with failing to appear in court. It’s a slam-dunk of a charge in this case, and it carries a potential sentence of three years in state prison. If it’s proven that Judge Rittenband intended to violate the plea bargain, it’ll make Polanski’s flight understandable, but it won’t make it legal. Nevertheless, the defense will most certainly play this card for maximum advantage to show why Polanski shouldn’t be punished for having fled before the sentencing.
There is some talk that the defense might ask to withdraw the plea on the rape charge and go to trial, but I very much doubt that will happen. Polanski’s looking at a long fall if the case gets pulled together.
That doesn’t mean it’s all over, though. The DA’s office could ask to withdraw from the plea bargain on the rape because Polanski violated the terms of the deal when he fled the country. The defense could try to block that by claiming that Polanski only fled because the judge was going to give him an unfair sentence, but that argument’s probably a nonstarter.
If the plea was withdrawn, could the DA’s office pull the case together after all this time? Probably. First of all, even though Geimer said she didn’t want Polanski to do any more time, I wouldn’t discount the possibility that she’d show up to testify at trial. But even if she didn’t, lots of other evidence is out there: Geimer’s spontaneous statements to others about the rape, the observations of the nurses and doctors who examined her, and Polanski’s admissions to friends, family, and others would come in. Bottom line, there’s a case that can be made even without the victim—and without Polanski’s guilty plea.
And if this case does go to trial, Polanski might find himself wishing he’d gotten it into court back in 1977. Because Wells was certainly right. The ’70s are long gone, and today people see rape for the crime it is.
Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, served as a columnist for Justice Magazine and is finishing her debut crime novel.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Is Polanski the New O.J.?
Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, served as a columnist for Justice Magazine and is finishing her debut crime novel.
The Lost Polanski Transcripts
Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, served as a columnist for Justice Magazine and is finishing her debut crime novel.
The Coverup Is Worse Than the Crime
Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, served as a columnist for Justice Magazine and is finishing her debut crime novel.
Roman Polanski drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13-year girl then skipped bail and ran like a coward to France. We can spend all day debating the personalities in this story as well as the Polanski HBO propaganda "documentary", it's still not going to change the basic facts of the case. So everyone continue trying to muddy the waters, we the people have plenty of truth bleach to clear it back up.
Too bad we don't feel that way about ex Presidents and Vice Presidents.
What does that mean? If you're snidely referring to Bill Clinton - and I have no idea what Vice President you might be referring to - do you actually think that raping a 13 year-old girl is the same as an adult having sex with another willing adult? You may understandably not like Clinton on an ethical level for his behavior with women - it was a sordid, sorry time for the man - but that's a far cry from rape.
Doug, I think it's a reference to Bush and co. Some people believe that brining Polanski to justice is somehow stopping the Justice department (who has nothing to do with this case) from getting Bush, Osama bin Laden and Swiss tax evaders. They are usually Polanski apologists.
How true, are you serious everyone, this man is a child molester, he raped a 13 year old girl, are these famous people for real, they think their above the law, Whoppie Goldberg, Wood Allan, and all the other idiots who want to fight for this man to be free, make me ill. Because he is a famous movie producer that entitles him to rape this young lady, BS, I'm sick of famous people!
You write this as if you care of the child. The child is an adult now and her wishes are that she be left alone. Does she really need to dredge up what she has made peace on?
Second a corrupt government is far more disgusting then a single crime. A corrupt government will harm thousands. Judges and prosecutors make up our government. Judges and prosecutors colluding to effect a result or trick people in the process is corrupt government action. This is the disgusting part.
There is something disturbing about the argument, often made by misguided liberals, that because a government, any government, has committed some crime, hurt more than one person, that somehow that is more important than the crimes of one individual. That means, of course, that German citizens convicted of rape or murder should never receive any attention from law enforcement because how could their crimes ever compare to the horrendous crimes of the Nazis. This argument is moral relativism at its worst.Here's the issue. It doesn't matter how great an artist you are, how much you have donated to worthy causes (see "Inside Man"), what a great guy you are, how much people adore you. None of this is useful exculpatory evidence for the defense in any just society. Polanski's case comes down to this: Did he flee the country, instead of fighting the perceived judicial mistreatment in court? Yes. There is no other point here. He got off easy on the rape charge. He should be grateful. But those were different times. If I was among his advisors, I would have him do this: A. Return to the USA under the agreement that he will only be charged for his flight, not for a retrial of the original conviction; B. Accept a plea bargain on the flight charge. Serve a year in prison. Become, at last a free man.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Maybe it's because he's rich, money buys lots of friends. Oh but wait all jews are rich so were saying the same thing.
Are you really that stupid and anti-semetic? Next time you feel like posting don't, instead i suggest you go jump off a bridge and save the world from having to deal with you or any progeny you might have.
The fact that he is a Jew and you are antisemitic is beside the point.
"The fact that he is a Jew and you are antisemitic is beside the point."
That's the whole point. The girl and her mother have both said they do not want to prosecute. The end.
misha1000
What the girl and her family want has no bearing on the case. In fact, I can't understand why they would be so selfish with this thing, other than they got paid off. If it (the whole affair) prevents one child from being raped/molested/abused in the future, it's worth every penny and heartache it causes. Jew, Gentile, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Antichrist, whatever, you don't rape (sodomize, oral, penetrate) a 13 year old child, ever. The end.
When did the girl and her mother say that? I've seen the victim on TV and never heard her say that.
It's becaues they took money from him babe and a lot of money Jew, antisemitic, or orange with purple pockadots money talks no one walks Polanski will get off no one with money after 35 years will get prosecuted
Embers, the 'victim' said in testimony before the superior court of Ca, county Los Angeles on Aug 7, 1977 case number A-334139
Besides he's not Jewish. He's Catholic
"But because he's Jewish, many are trying to excuse him."
Yes, and all Christians are as pure as the driven snow. Glad to see Hitlerites are alive and well. Goebbels did his job well.
Anti-semitism is for stupid people (apparently about half who blog here), and irrelevant in this case. While one might understand Polanski was temporarily insane due to the murder of his wife and child, and committed a depraved act should be taken into consideration. But he committed a crime, admitted to it, and then used his wealth to escape his penance, like so many other wealthy people. It's not just Hollywood folk - it's wealthy folk, who seem to think they are above the law (because, let's face it - they ARE above the law, because our legal system is corrupt).
If the world was fair, many CEO's of the major banks, hedge funds, and investment firms would be in jail (as would Cheney and Bush..), but the world isn't fair. It's crooked as hell, and we let it be that way. Finally arresting Polanski decades later, when it is so much 'water under the bridge' reeks of politics more than anything, because the Swiss are not known for their ethics (just their 'discretion' - friggin cheese-making bankers..).
The rapist has led a gilded life, and we've enjoyed a lot of his work. Had he spent the year or so in jail at the time would have been the right thing to do, and we'd have forgotten about his crime by now (but would he have had the chance to make all those wonderful films had he been a convicted rapist?) Hollywood does forgive (as do many good folk).
Making Polanski suffer in his golden years may be the karma he deserves for escaping justice all these years. A just world would have extradited him from France back when. If Tommy Chong gets imprisoned for making bongs, then Polanski should do his time, if only to serve as a warning that when you commit perverted acts with children - no matter the circumstances, mitigating or otherwise - you can run but you can't hide. You WILL be held accountable. In a Just society. In America, wealth buys justice (remember OJ). I, for one, feel he should serve time, because we have enough spoiled, wealthy film makers. When need fewer rape victims.
Fentro: While one might understand Polanski was temporarily insane due to the murder of his wife and child, and committed a depraved act should be taken into consideration.
----------------------------------------
He committed the crime EIGHT YEARS after the death of his wife. Save me the "temporarily insane " crap. He was of sound mind and sound body enough to know that he needed to give this child drugs and alcohol first before attempting to rape and sodomize her! Unless he spent all eight years raping and sodomizing little girls!
His MOTHER was killed in the Holocaust, he WIFE was murdered? What DIRECT trauma has HE ever suffered? There are plenty of people walking around who have suffered a lot of DIRECT trauma, including people who were actually in gas chambers and managed to escape. THEY aren't going around raping and sodomizing little children in response. How much urban crime is caused by kids growing up in single-parent families and surrounded by daily crime, do we use it to excuse their crime? No because they aren't rich, famous and make good movies.
The law does not differentiate between Christian and Jew. I see misha got out of her straight jacket again.
Could everyone drop the sarcasm, please? I'm having a really tough time following who is really Jewish and who is really Anti-Semitic. And since his religion has so much to do with this case, I feel I need to be able to understand it all so I can make an informed decision.
"But because he's Jewish, many are trying to excuse him."
Gosh it is good to see some of that old-time antisemitism: the international Zionist conspiracy, the "stab in the back" of the German army in 1918, the Jewish interests that controlled Roosevelt and Churchill.
I know that hidflect's claim is ridiculous, but I think it is good to actually look at facts. Exactly who is supposed to be excusing Polanski? Have you ever heard of a Christian or agnostic claiming that it was alright for Jews to be criminals? Even if there were some Jewish conspiracy, would it make sense for them to defend a child molester? Would not these master criminals just throw him to the wolves?
This is nonsense. The time elapsed and the alledged misconduct are the reasons for the sentiment, not his religion. His crime may be punishable and should be reviewed. I am astounded by how much anyone cares.
People are trying to excuse him because he's Jewish? Where do you anti-Semitic commenters come from? Why the hatred of Jews?
ohferfuckssake...
Oh please now we have heard(read)everything...Jewish...What does that have to do with anything? He is guilty;he said so himself. Yes he did flee the country and like most people in the world with a few influential friends he's trying to get out of payig for what he did.I'm sure you would do the same if you were in a bad situation.The crime is terrible,yet there are many others that go unpunished when the price is right as with Michael Jackson etc...and I don't think he was jewish! your arguments trivialize the crime.
Prosecutor lies to the press and admits submitting documents to the judge prior to sentencing, sounds unethical to me. To Hidflect, your comment that people are trying to excuse Polanski because he is Jewish sounds weird, what support do you have for that. Maybe his defenders feel that way because he is Polish, I do not know. More likely it is because he is a celebrity with great directorial skills.
But it wasn't THE prosecutor, unethical does not always equal unlawful.
But it was THE judge.
Giving a 43-year old man 42 DAYS in a psychiatry ward for drugging, rapping, and sodomizing a 13-year old child sounds unethical to me. The judge was going to give him an actual jail sentence-as he should have in the first place.
This article is missing a link. Someone needs to get out a spell as well. Hasn't ANYONE at The Beast ever heard of proof-reading and quality control? Ridiculous.
Look up the words 'picayune', 'pedantic' and 'didactic'. Memorize the second definitions of each. Then, the next time you want to post a criticism such as this, recall and recite those definitions until the urge passes. Ten you might avoid looking silly.
("Someone needs to get out a spell as well.")
Would that be a love spell? Maybe a transformation spell that turns a human into a JACKASS? Oops, somebody done did.
Ah, I see. NOW he's lying. Or wait: THEN he was lying? Or way back when was he lying?
LA County DAs.Since Day 1 (literally--look back to the 1920s and follow the slime-trail forward): crooked, inept or both. Delicious irony points: article contributed by inept DA who lost a notable case by suborning crooked testimony.
CA should really look to other states (the one due north, for example) on how to run professional responsibility offices. Dishonesty is an ineffective engine for expedience. The public is woefully ill-served by negligent, corner-cutting, grandstanding and out-and-out unethical prosecutors.
Wells: "What he probably didn't count on was that Polanski would promise to put everyone in the prison in his next movie and basically charm his way out of there in just 42 days."
Like Hollywood would even consider favoring people with film spots and etc. to get out of prosecution of all sorts of things?... attempt a charm offensive? Oh, goodness no! Would never ever happen in Hollywood!
Trial law 101 - Were you lying then, or are you lying now, or are you lying about your lying?
When the victim says she is victimized more by the prosecution than then defendant, who is the real offender? Can't she be allowed to move on, instead of living her whole life as "the woman raped by Polanski?".
No, she cannot be allowed to 'move on'. She gave up that right when she took an out-of-court settlement and allowed her name published in the media. It was she, not anyone else that allowed that to happen.
Absolutely, just as soon as Polanski is in jail for rape.
people seem to forget that he did the time for the crime in the 70's. he was sentenced to 90 days for evaluation. the 70's had a different view of this crime than we do today. He only skipped after hearing that he was going to be railroaded by a judge who was going to renig on the plea bargain. I am not defending this reprehensible act or person. Just that he entered a plea bargain in good faith, executed the terms in good faith, and was going to be basically punished twice for the same crime. Yes, he is a rich, talented man who thumbed his nose at the system. This all seems more about that than the actual event itself.
Have you read any of the articles surrounding this affair?
He ran before the trial.
What was 'ASSUMED' to be misconduct on the part of the DAs office NEVER HAPPENED, because he never showed up for the trial.
That being said, you need to read the above article. What the one DA said happened in the documentary NEVER HAPPENED. He said he lied.
And Polanski never admitted in any legal way -- i.e., in court -- that he raped the girl.
Tmikes
Oh, but he did. He admitted it at least once, right before he was sent for the psychiatric eval. You need to read the transcript on the Drudge Report. It's well documented that he admitted his guilt.
he didn't do 42 days as a sentence for the crime, he was held as a psych evaluation.
Hers's a quote from an interview the poor misunderstood genius gave about the incedent...
"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But... f-ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f- young girls. Juries want to f- young girls. Everyone wants to f- young girls!"
yep we just don't get it. ha
I read another article that makes a good point for all the liberal protectors of this rapist. What if his name was "Father Polanski" would he rate a pass then? doubt it.
Why do you think a "liberal" would think that Polanski should be protected from the consequences of his crime? Many liberals - by which I think you might mean, for example, those who belong to the Democratic party or think the government ought to do more to protect the health of its citizens - would react the way you have reacted to the transcript of his interview thirty years ago. We think what he did was unforgivable, a horror not lessened with the passage of time.
How many priests can you name who have gone to prison for having sex of any sort?
Hey Tmikes, no one told me there was going to be a test. I can't name any priests - period. Oh, except the pope - do I get partial credit?
I think we can all agree that most readers of The Huffington Post are liberal, right? Well, check out the fact that the comments to the posts on Polanski on Huffpo are running about ten to one against him right now. There is a lot of disgust about his rape of this girl.
Get off your righteous conservative high horse and deal with reality.
Since when is 90 days an appropriate sentence for a 40 y/o man drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl?
And don't forget the child porn he created by filming it.
Those charges were dropped and he was charged with a misdemeanor.
He was NOT given a 90 day sentence He did NOT even go to trial. He underwent, 42 days of a 90 day court ordered psych evaluation. Time served, out he went and off to France. I truly hope he gets back here and has to go to trial. I always say let the punishment fit the crime. Under the law his sentence would be incarceration. I hope it happens.
My sense, too.
Polanski's just more evidence for anti-Semites, tea baggers and right-wingers in general that America is somehow no longer "their" country. Sticking it to RP for a 32-year old crime is their way of sticking it to Obama and all the other liberals, Jews, Hollywood types they hate.
Marcia Clark is nuts if she believes that Wells claiming he lied about fixing the case makes the whole issue of judicial misconduct go away.
What is the matter with LA County DAs? If they're not incompetent (Marcia Clark's losing the slam-dunk OJ Simpson case) they're total scum who deserve to be disbarred (David "I was lying then but I'm not lying now" Wells).
Marcia, if you're reading this -- here's what's more likely to happen now that Wells is claiming he lied on camera. RP's lawyers will cite his "recanting" as further evidence that LA County justice is so corrupt that he simply cannot receive a fair trial. No way will the Swiss extradite a man to stand trial in which corrupt prosecutors play to the lynch mob out on the street.
My prediction: RP will be back at home in Paris by spring.
"What is the matter with LA County DAs? If they're not incompetent (Marcia Clark's losing the slam-dunk OJ Simpson case)"
The OJ case was no slam-dunk if you followed the trial closely. Remember, the prosecution and a couple of the police detectives were caught in lies, which helped in no small measure to highlight the defense theory of frame-up for the mostly black jurors.
I remember seeing one of those jurors in an interview and he said the DNA evidence was strong but so was the police lies and other misconducts. In other words, maybe the police attempted to frame the guilty man.
Apparently, the LA county DAs still haven't learned any lessons.
You're wrong about the Swiss not willing to extradite. The feds demanded names and account numbers of AMERICAN bank account holders for possible prosecution as to the criminal nature of those deposits. The French are another story.
Since when did President Obama stand up for Polanski? He is the father of two young girls and don't see a universe where he thinks drugging, raping and sodomizing 13-year old kids trivial. This is not a teabagger issue, this is an issue that MOST liberals are united AGAINST Polanski. Getting justice for the rape of women and children is very much a DEMOCRATIC issue. But thanks Polanski apologists for trying to divide us.
Whoa, stop the press. Did old Roman tea bag someone?
You are dead wrong. There are a ton of posts on this topic and 90% of them are very consistent. He committed terrible acts of drugging, kidnapping, rape, forced sodomy and child pornography and should be removed from society as a result. I see very few people focused on the fact that he ran or is ruch, etc. as the root cause of their indignation.
I don't understand apologists like you. This wasn't a simple stautory rape case. This man was a monster who did some serious crimes here. If he was a character in a movie the audience would all cheer when dirty harry put a bullet in his brain. And that was in the same '70's you use as an excuse to say his crimes weren't that bad by the standard of the time. What a pathetic point of view.
If his crime was then so horrible (and it was), then why did LA county DAs accept a plea bargain in which Polanski's time served was limited to however long he stayed in a state psychiatric hospital?
Which turned out to be about 45 days.
That alone ought to tell you something about our attitudes at the time. The girl was regarded as a slut with a pimp for a mother. (Mom seems to have thought that a fling with Polanski would launch daughter's movie career.)
Attitudes on rape, child rape included, have changed. The victim's sexual history is now off-limits in a trial.
But even by the standards of the late 1970s, Polanski basically got away with child rape.
The prosecutors said they accepted the deal because otherwise they would go to trial and the victim would have to testify in detail about everything that happened. They weren't happy about the deal, but wanted to save the girl face.
Which especially makes sense after reading this article and its description of what rape trials in the 70's were like.
Cashmoney: If his crime was then so horrible (and it was), then why did LA county DAs accept a plea bargain in which Polanski's time served was limited to however long he stayed in a state psychiatric hospital?
The girl was regarded as a slut with a pimp for a mother. (Mom seems to have thought that a fling with Polanski would launch daughter's movie career.)
-------------------------------------------------
1) One the crime WAS horrible, but at that time the influence of rich and powerful was more important than that of a victim. The tried to use the excuse that Polanski's mother died in the Holocaust when he was a child and that his wife was murdered EIGHT YEARS as reasons for his behavior so they put him in a psych ward.
2) Yeah, apparently men need to give drugs and alcohol to prostitutes to get them to have sex with them. And apparently rich and famous movie makers can't get anyone to have sex with them without drugging them first.
3) Even if a 13-year old CHILD is delivered to your door stop wrapped in a ribbon, what 43-year old man will rape and sodomize her because no one is looking?
4) What part of a little girl asking to go home and protesting having a dirty old man anally rape her was considered normal behavior in the 70's?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
When you legally enter into a plea bargain in good faith, you do so with the understanding that the judge has the legal right to ignore it.
EXACTLY!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea8.htm l
District Attorney: Do you understand that at this time, the Court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive?
Polanski: (No response.)
District Attorney: Do you understand that the Judge has not made any decision?
Polanski: Yes
Anyone who sympathizes with this jerk should have his head examined.
They don't call Los Angeles "La-La-Land" for nothing. It's an alternate Universe where all bets are off and a whole bunch of weird shit happens. The human version of the B.F. Skinner rat cage.
This is just the latest installment of Reality Television imitating Real Life or vice-versa. A scandal a week, forever. It makes good copy for the cover of TV Guide.
Hollywood babylon.
I'm sad that Polanski has had a tough life. But he shouldn't take it out on a child.
The child seems to have been neglected by her family. If she wasn't a virgin, why not?
Everybody failed that girl.
In what fantasy world does the likes of Polanski live in if he believes it was ok to sodomise a 13 year old?
Things haven't changed that much.
Imagine if this was a female film director, drugging, feeding alcohol to a 13 year old boy, making him submit to sex acts.
How would we feel about her?
She'd be a pariah not feted by the French intelligencia.
Dude maybe back in the day like the 70's this kid was a kid but by todays standards 13 is late. kids start sex at 9 and if Polanski goes to trial the standards jury will go by is 2009 not 1970 and between 1970 and 2009 their a whole lot of history not to say the money the family took from him and the written forgiveness they sign
What CHILDREN do you know who start having sex at age 9? Do you know what a 9 year old GIRL looks like? Exactly like a 5 year old girl except taller.
"YOU LIE!"
crymeariver
in NYC kids have sex starting at 9 babe by 16 on LI thay are already doing heroin--- you don't know jack about kids now a days fool
How's that working for them Steff?
I highly doubt that a judge is going to allow Polanski to withdraw his guilty plea. It was an open plea. It would be detrimental to all parties to head for trial...
Of course he can withdraw it. He has until the actual sentencing to demand a trial.
I hope he gets his wishes to get a trial. He took the plea originally because he knew he would not get away with drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13-year old girl. No matter how much they smeared that child, the jury will have locked him away for a LONG time.
The victim doesn't have to testify again, it's all on the records. Good-luck trying to get away with that type of a sexual crime against a child in California today with all the laws on the books. And good-luck finding a jury in 2009 who will fall for his sob story as a reason to rape a child.
Polanski and his lawyers are no fools, they are going to do EVERYTHING they can to avoid coming back to the U.S. He is going to try to get bail from the Swiss courts then run like the coward that he is across the border back to France.
A judge is not going to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea after 32 years, unless the other five charges aren't dismissed. Polanski can asked to withdraw it, but a court isn't going to allow it. Polanski avoided sentencing by fleeing, if he returns, he will probably be sentenced, and the work will be in appeals..
The only reason that his guilty plea is withdrawn, is not too prejudice the other five charges if they are not dismissed. Guilty pleas are incredibly difficult to dismiss or set aside.
His plea would be technically withdrawn, but how many jurors would know nothing about the factual basis he affirmed at the plea hearing? That transcript has been around forever, and having said "I raped the protesting 13-year-old girl after drugging her", I doubt he could unring that particular bell.
They should put Wells in prison too. What a pathetic excuse for a prosecutor. I lied then because I thought it would make a good story. Please.
But whatever he did, it should not be allowed to overshadow or excuse seeking justice against the monster that is Polanski. How can anyone with kids, neices, or any kind of human compassion whatsoever say we should just move on and let a man who kidnapped, drugged, raped, sodomized and filmed sex with a protesting 13-year-old girl go free?
Why is anyone paying attention to what a loser(remember OJ) like Ms Clark has to say? Why would any one believe anything an admitted liar like Wells has to say? Why isn't Polanski serving time for his crime? Why isn't the victims mother (who set up this whole thing) doing time? American justice you got to love it.
Inconsistent hypocrites who sexualize young children for advertising purposes, forgive just about anything a sports star does (except when it has to do with animals), based on how popular/important that person is to the megabusiness are now trying to make this a right-left thing. Elvis moved in with his young teenage obsession and pretended that they never had sex until she was of age. He didn't go to jail. Countless college and professional athletes get into similar circumstances and are not prosecuted. There is a double, if not triple standard here.
I say this as a civil liberatarian--why are the Eurpoeans, and so many Hollywood liberals, so quick to forgive a man who drugged and raped a 13-year old girl and then fled the country before sentencing? Is it because he makes good films? This cavalier attitude of hey, it happened so long ago, let's just let it slide, is truy appalling! If this guy worked say, in a stone quarry, no one would espouse such bullsh*t. And look, if RP truly thought there was judicial or prosecutorial misconduct, there are legal remedies to address those kids of problems.
You are correct. Its the trademark of the limousine liberal... They say... "You just don't understand our kind!"
I wonder if this had happened to George Bush... what their outcry woul be?
But no, he is an artiste!!! He can get away with rape... it was a different time!
That's such BS. This has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservatives. Some people are obsessed with turning everything into a political argument.
What would the liberal media and Hollywood apologists response be if this were about Father Polansky the priest rather than Roland Polansky the director-artist.
Hhmm. Quite a hypocritical double standard here I should say.
Roman Polanski was not charged with rape. He was charged with have sex with a minor. And he plead guilty. This article, written by the person who botched the OJ Simpson case should get her facts straight. It seems that everyone responsible for prosecuting criminals in Los Angeles is corrupt.
He was charged with drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13-year old child. He plea bargained down to "sex with a minor" (a.k.a. statutory rape) to avoid a full trial.
He was charged with 6 counts. Rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor - those 5 were dropped in exchange for the plea of guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
I guess Marcia is back in your good graces now?
WOW I'm sick to my stomach, because a man produces movies the Hollywood famous think he should be forgiven and not serve anytime in prison. OMG, what is going on here, he raped and sodomized a 13 year old girl! I've had it with Hollywood stars getting special treatment, something needs to be done about this. I can't even find the words to say how appalled I feel.
How about that Bush and Cheney basically raped Iraq?
The States has puritanical schizophrenia.
Off-topic. Some people here (on both sides) seem to think every single article is an excuse to try and turn the discussion to their personal obsession. I'd be happy to chime in on those two criminals, but not here.
misha100
You're an idiot.
How about the English still raping the Irish...
The English setting side deals with Libya for oil deals w/ BP
The French doinking the Arabs under deGaulle...
Should I really bring up Germany? Nazis
Spain & Italy? Communist/Fascist...
How far back in history shall we go, when talking about across the POND!
Puritanical Schizophrenia... Please
Prosecuting for proverbial rape sounds dangerous and something for the tort crowd. Let's stick to crimes against humanity for politicans.
Iraq was dressed like a slut and was begging for it. Besides, they had been raped several times before by the British, so what's the big deal?
Wait--Marcia Clark called the late Judge Laurence Rittenband "publicity-hungry"??
Pot,meet kettle.
Co-sign.
The Daily Beast like all media outlets and movie stars are doing everything they can to muddy the waters in order to get their god Polankski off the hook. The Today Show is going full out to get Polanski apologists on to defend him DAILY.
How do we know the prosecutor isn't now lying about lying and in fact was telling the truth about the judge who literally was shooting off his mouth all over town about how he was going to send Roman Polanski to prison for the rest of his life. After he had already sentenced him. The final hearing as I understand it was merely a formality.
Personally I think there is something wrong with the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office. If they had a strong case, they should have proceeded with it instead of allowing the proverbial slap on the wrist. The point is obviously they didn't although they did insist that Roman Polanski serve 90 days in Chino which was really a period of evaluation to determine whether or not he was a pedophile. He was released early when it was determined he was not.. And that should have been that. But wasn't. Because of the judge. Who had been shooting his mouth off. Which is why Roman Polanski booked himself on a flight and with passport in hand flew to Paris. As opposed to fleeing as a fugitive. Lots of curiosities about how he fled. To be honest, if the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office had been worried, he wouldn't have had his passport. But then he had already left the country once after sentencing and did so to complete a film. And returned and reported to Chino. Marcia, you and everyone else are leaving out so much in this. For what purpose, who knows. But for many this has become merely a witch hunt similar to the one conducted against Charlie Chaplin.
The general public is applying current law and "mores" to 1977. The age of consent in 1977 in California was 14. So her being 13 is different in that sense that it would be today. She was only weeks away from her 14th birthday. She also was not a virgin and also apparently was "knowledgeable" about drugs per her grand jury testimony. With all due respect to the victim, she was part victim but also part Lolita.
And then you have the statement of Anjelica Huston who was there that day. The girl didn't look or act like a girl and certainly didn't look or act like someone who had just been raped.
We may end watching it unfold in court after all. Which may end up really "victmizing" the victim. Which is not justice by any stretch of the imagination. But will provided pleasure for those who still like to burn witches at the stake.
Baby... that is fine and all... Next time I am arrested, I will take the law in my own hands and flee the country. Let's set a precedent: 1. That its OK to commit statutory rape for girls that are 1 year under the legal limit, b/c they have had sex before. 2. One can provide illegal drugs to them, b/c they have used them in the past.
Baby, do you have a daughter you want to introduce me to?
You are a sick individual.
Babysnooks is just giving you a SMALL taste of the attacks that the poor 13-year old KID experienced at the time. It's the "smear the victim" tactic that people used fairly commonly for cases of rape and incest against girls.
I guess it's a mark of progress for our society that 90% of the posts on this board aren't using Baby's tactic. We have come a long way, but there are still dinosaurs like Baby laying around.
Similarly in some countries today girls who are raped are called whores then gang-raped or stoned as punishment.
Yes the 40 year old man did not rape a child
because "SHE WANTED IT"
hopefully you never find out how despicable your statement is...
Just because Anjelica H. didn't think the girl act in a certain way that SHE thinks represents a person who has been raped doesn't mean the girl was not raped. FYI, many young girls flaunt their sexuality because they don't understand the consequences of this because they are too young. A child's brain is growing until 18 and they also have a hard time distinguishing emotions and expressions, what people really mean and so forth. You cannot tell me that you have not aged or matured just a little since you were 13?
1) The age of consent in California has been 18 since 1913.
2) It is not justificable to have sex with a THIRTEEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL, or to rape any person of any age, regardless of past sex history or drug use. Polanski drugged and raped her while she asked him repeatedly not to. Are you seriously trying to tell us she asked for it?
3) Oh, I'm sorry, what does a rape victim look like? Because they all act the same, you know. It's impossible for a woman to be in shock, or trying to deny it, or still under the influence. No, there's a guideline, and if you don't act in exactly the right way, clearly it's fake!
OH WAIT.
4) Every time Polanksi makes a movie, every time he gives an interview about the case, every time he gets to take advantage of being "above the law," his victim is victimized, and so is the justice system. He has a responsibility to present himself to a court of law and be accountable for his actions to both.
Why do people keep claiming the age of consent in CA was 14 in 1977? I can't find a single shred of evidence to support that. What I can find is the transcript of Polanski's plea, where the judge tells him the legal defense against Unlawful Sexual Intercourse is that the perp believes the victim was 18. That implies to me the age of consent was 18. Polanski said he knew she was 13. Here's the transcript: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea10.html
BabySnooks - when you grow up and become PapaSnooks, you'll feel differently about whether a girl a few weeks away from her 14th birthday deserves to be called "part victim, part Lolita".
If I understand what the victim was saying right, the court process and related media was worse for her and her family and caused more harm to her than what Polanski did.
This does not imply what Polanski did did not harm her.
Considering how much harm Polanski did, a person can just guess how much more of a victim she was made to be through the actions of the courts and media.
Explora... there is cause and effect here. If the pedophile never raped the minor, the courts and media would have no chance of harming her. It was Polanski's own fame, that caught everyone else's eye, not the child's.
If this was Joe Schmo, he would already served his time in jail and this would be a non-issue.
Why is Mr. Pedophile treated differently? What if Sharon Tate's murderers thought the judge was out to get them and they decided to flee the country and make wonderful films?
I am talking about the victim. She has repeatedly said this process hurts her, and no one is listening, possibly the way what's his name did/didn't.
I probably wouldn't watch his movies now, though I thought pianist was a great movie.
Sort of the way I feel about Moore's movies, they are sort of a good break from it all, but I don't like the confrontational style he uses, but I still might go cause ...
He drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 year old girl - and there is a debate? There is a revolution set to happen soon.
What does that mean, a revolution set to happen? This is already the most violent nation in the free world.
How can this be considered about revolution, I think it is about lawyers making money on this case.
Since when does it benefit a victim, to continuously put her name and face out there, so she has to relive the ordeal again, and now her husband/family, too.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.